The Registering Authority cannot refuse to register a document based on the title of the executant or the absence of NALA conversion proceedings, as its role is procedural and not adjudicatory regarding ownership.

O R D E R :

With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed declaring the action of Respondent No.3 in not registering and releasing the gift deed P.No.265/2026 dated 22.04.2026 presented by the Petitioner in respect of house property bearing Municipal No. H.No.33/6 (PTIN No.1262500536) in Survey No.325/Part, admeasuring 2178 square yards with a plinth area of 640 square feet A.C.C. situated at Narsingi Village, Gandipet Mandal, within the limits of Cyberabad Municipal Corporation Ranga Reddy District as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Sravanthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2178 sq.yards in Sy.No.325/part of Narsingi village, Gandipet mandal, Ranga Reddy district having acquired the same through a Gift Settlement Deed dated 3.1.1984 and later got validated by respondent No.2 vide File No.5335/E/2001 dated 2.1.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner decided to gift the house property to his sons and executed a Gift Settlement Deed dated 22.4.2026 and presented the same before the respondent No.3, but the respondent No.3 has refused to register the same vide Refusal Order No.13 of 2026 dated 25.4.2026, which is wholly unsustainable in view of the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No.16310 of 2019 and batch dated 11.1.2023 and also recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Gopi v. The Sub-Registrar and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. A perusal of the impugned refusal order dated 25.4.2026, discloses that the registration of the document presented by the petitioner was refused on the following reasons:

“1. The Pattadar Names (vendor) are not reflecting in Bhubharathi web portal.

2. The link document dated 2.1.2001 based on which the present sale deed is executed is not registered which is violation of Section 17 of the Registration Act.

3. The NALA conversion proceedings from the Competent Authority as per the instructions of C&IG Memo No.G3/3247/2018 dated 1.5.2019.

3. The Scheduled land is not approved layout from the competent authority; and

4. LRS duties were not paid for the said land”.

7. Insofar as the objection taken by the Registering Authority with regard to NALA conversion proceedings is concerned, the said issue has already been dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.15471 of 2024, wherein, this Court has deprecated the practice of the Registering Authority in refusing the register the document without understanding the purport of the earlier orders of this Court. The Court has further observed that the Registering Authorities are unable to decipher the Court orders and also admonished the Sub-Registrars in insisting for Court orders on settled issues and disposed of the said writ petition with the following directions:

“19. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Registering Authority to receive, register and release the subject document, subject to the petitioner complying with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and